Posts by MeanMrMustard

51

BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz in

the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

finland attacks judicial committees.

please like and share article so more get to see it!.

MeanMrMustard

Band on the Run,

You are right to mention this. This thread started out about Finland, but that not where the thread is now.

MMM

51

BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz in

the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

finland attacks judicial committees.

please like and share article so more get to see it!.

MeanMrMustard

Hi Giordano,

I read the cases you link to. They are not the same. The shunning comes from the currently active members of the WT.

Rebecca Hancock had a case of slander until she went to Fox news and outed herself. She was persuing a relationship with a man out of marriage and her current church didn't like that. She terminated her membership, and the church decided it was going to present her wrongs publically to the congragation (probably read a list off one Sunday or something). As you know, JWs don't do this because it could turn to slander. Her case evaporated when she went to Fox news and confirmed everything was true on national TV. Again, she had the freedom to leave. She did. Good for her.

Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville link: This is a case of a woman, Marian Guinn, who wanted to have a relationship with a man that the church didn't approve of. The church told her no, she quit. Again, freedom of assocation confirmed right there. But here is where it devates drastically from the WT: the church rejected her decision, then excommunicated her, and then went to all the local churches and told them what she had done. This was the problem. The WT is not doing this. They will either terminate their association, or the member will. Their policy of shunning applies to the rest of the currently active members, and they don't go around telling local churches the offenses of the former member, and they don't make the offenses public to the congregation.

MMM

51

BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz in

the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

finland attacks judicial committees.

please like and share article so more get to see it!.

MeanMrMustard

Hi Fraz,

I don't think I am missing the point. I know what you are saying. I just disagree. Take, for example, the right you listed: "If you are so set on what right is being infringed - it is the right not to be subject to psychological abuse."

Can you define "psychological abuse"? Can you guarantee that ambigious phrase won't be used sometime in the future to limit other liberties we might enjoy? You do realize that making a "right" out of that may impose some unintended duties on individuals later on, and I don't just mean the WT - I mean simple people? What about the husband that has a wife and family but decides he doesn't want to be with them anymore. Is he allowed to make that choice? Or is an activist court going to come in later and say, "Well, it seems that his leaving constitutes psychological abuse, even in a small degree, and therefore the wife's human right is violated." Or what if it is decided, by wise politicians of course, that being raised a JW is abuse? Should their children be taken away by force? This is not too far fetched, after all, besty did say that he feels it is abuse to be raised in high control groups. What if you are not in a high control group, but want to home school your children? What if the local public school is horrible (as a lot are in inner cities) and a concerned parent, limited by lack of free choice in schools, wants to home school? Again, this is not far fetched. Simply google “home school abuse”. There are individuals who are of the opinion that home schooling is abuse in and of itself.

What if I decide, for reasons OTHER THAN religion, that I don't want to talk to my mother and father (or children)? Should I be forced because it may be viewed as abuse?

You mentioned bullying. Do you consider name calling “bullying”? When I was growing up, “bullying” was being physically assaulted.

MMM

51

BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz in

the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

finland attacks judicial committees.

please like and share article so more get to see it!.

MeanMrMustard

You're right, the shunning comes from the members.

But how many do you really think would do it if they weren't under threat of shunning (for noncompliance) themselves?

A few, maybe 20%. There is no way to know for sure, but I think it is safe to say it would be some small minority. But I don’t see the point as it relates to human rights. How many people would buy a new car if they weren’t under a budget?

Good for them. If that kind of passive rebellion against the GB's fatwas were more common, things would get really interesting.

I believe it is more common than one might think.

Don't make the mistake of confusing belief with compliance.

Besides, just how much of a "belief" can it really be, if (as a hypothetical scenario) the GB could abandon the WT's shunning policy with a word, and 7 million JWs worldwide suddenly felt free to associate with their DFed friends and relatives?

Let’s say it is 20% belief and 80% compliance, as I guessed in the first answer above. I don’t think it is relevant to the issue of “rights”, and freedom of association. They would feel free to associate with DFed (or DAed) individuals because the organization they are a part of says it is OK, no dispute from me on that. But by having the current policy, what "right" is the WT violating? We all think the WT abuses its authority when it comes to former members. But we give the WT that authority by choice, and we can take it away - and by this I mean the current active members that choose to do the shunning and comply (belief or not) with the WT. The government on the other hand is a different story. If the power is granted to the government to smash the WT in this regard, then fine. But the government still has that power afther the WT bashing is over. It shouldn't have that power at all.

MMM

51

BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz in

the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

finland attacks judicial committees.

please like and share article so more get to see it!.

MeanMrMustard

Vidiot is correct to point out the "coercing" that occurs to those who no longer can support the "error" of the teachings of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

One only has to read and or watch (you tube) to become familiar with this. Add the testimony in the Douglas Walsh trial about supporting error and you can see what Vidiot said is right on the money.

Also, I can tell you personally, that at this moment I know several who are going to meetings only because they have been threatened with loosing their families. Only because they want to save their wife and children. To see people I care for go thru this is my greatest source of anxiety. I can only describe the feeling, as like having a dream where you watch someone drown and you can not do anything about it. Problem is the coercion is real and happening as we speak.

If one wants to go further into research about coercion inside the "organization", read about Manuela Dormain's experience. She was the mother of an abused boy. For years her son had a behavior problem. Only by reading her son's letter to his girl friend did she find out he had a bad thing happen to him when he was young. Manuela was compelled to warn a father about the possibility that his son was also abused. The father turned out to be an elder who knew abuot Compos being an abuser. Not only was Manuela disapointed that this elder did not warn her, but the elder coerced her to not go forward with making known Compos abuse of her son.

What did Manuela do? She and her family did not allow themselves to be coerced. Watchtower settled out of court with a gag order. How much? I do not know. It is not the money. It is that someone faced the threat and came out the better for it.

Watchtower has first amendment rights. Watchtower has a substantial legal team. Watchtower has financial assets.

What Watchtower also has is a record of wrongdoing that the public needs to know about. Education of the public is perhaps the only action that means anything.

If and when something else comes up then: "here I am send me" LOL

Make Lemonade,

Surely you are correct! Shunning does hurt. There are many examples. We could all probably look to the members on this site for more than enough of these - and if not here, then just read through In Search of Christian Freedom by Ray Franz.

But I am not ready to push toward some sort of government involvement - as if that would stop the shunning. JWs went to the gas chambers with Jews for their faith. JWs die of lack of blood transfusions for their faith. As long as the WT says shunning is Biblical, you’ll have shunning. Period. No matter what laws are passed. And the law (like most laws) will have the opposite effect. But in the haste to address the “human rights” tragedy, we loose sight of what a real “right” is. We start to assert all sorts of positive rights that may put duties on others and undermine some liberties you, as an individual, may want to enjoy in the future.

I agree with you when you say this: “Education of the public is perhaps the only action that means anything.” That statement is spot on.

MMM

51

BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz in

the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

finland attacks judicial committees.

please like and share article so more get to see it!.

MeanMrMustard

The issue isn't that human rights are potentially violated when someone is expelled from a religious organization...

...it's that human rights are potentially violated when an individual voluntarily leaves a religious organization for personal reasons, and any family members or acquaintences who might otherwise be perfectly willing to remain in regular contact are, instead, compelled to shun him under direct or indirect threat of expulsion themselves.

Because they are willing members of said religion? So you are also saying that shunning itself violates some human right? What right is it? It can’t be the right to leave a religion, because the DFed individual already has left the religion. Is it a right to join a religion and not abide by the internal rules of the religion/group if you don’t want to? (since we are talking about active members that “might otherwise be perfectly willing to remain in regular contact”).

I know a bunch of Witnesses now that are in regular contact with DFed friends. They make that choice, and accept the consequences. Most of the time nothing comes of it. But I know a lot of former witnesses that would love to talk to their families - but their families don't want to talk to them. It sucks big time, but they believe it is right.

In addition, this also has the potential effect of making the individual himself feel coerced to remain associated with an organization that he otherwise would not, and what's more, accept and promote an ideology that he can no longer in good faith honestly subscribe to...

...which is also, arguably, a potential violation of human rights.

Why is this a violation of a human right? Because it puts someone in a bad spot? They willingly baptized themselves. Perhaps they were duped - as many of us were. But you do have the right (a true negative right) to leave, knowing what you got yourself into (the shunning doctrine isn’t really kept a secret). What if I “feel” coerced into living in a crappy apartment because I can’t afford a big one? What if a wife “feels” coerced into staying with her husband, when she would rather leave, but stays because she could never achieve the level of income as her husband. Are you saying that the wife’s human rights are violated because circumstances are bad for her?

"Feeling" coerced isn't the same as being coerced. Is is a human right not to "feel coerced"?

MMM

51

BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz in

the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

finland attacks judicial committees.

please like and share article so more get to see it!.

MeanMrMustard

I don't think society in general has figured out where to draw the line for freedom of religion

IMHO its a form of child abuse to raise kids in high control groups like JW's etc - but what can be done without impinging on the more benign religions?

But let’s say you could do something without hurting the more benign religions. Are you saying that JWs shouldn’t be allowed to have children? Or perhaps if a JW family were to have a child, it should be taken?

Step 1 is the stringent application of a strong public benefit test with charitable status set with a higher barrier

As I stated before, I don’t think the WT would pay this. The members would pay. The end result would be the shunning would continue, and the members would be poorer.

Government moves slowly but surely - 30 years ago JW kids in the UK were dieing over the blood issue - that simply doesnt happen anymore - so i figure maybe we are due for another step change - perhaps in how society perceives religious shunning

I am shunned because I am black gay ex-JW - its not OK, but thats where we are right now.

So are we saying that a JW, meeting an ex-JW on the street, has an obligation to converse of the former member would like to? I am not trying to be difficult. I really want to know where you are drawing the line in terms of a human "right" - to come up with a statement or two.

MMM

51

BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz in

the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

finland attacks judicial committees.

please like and share article so more get to see it!.

MeanMrMustard

what are the "human rights" that are violated if a group doesn't want you as a member anymore? - MMM

It's not about removal from membership, it's about using threats of sanctions to enforce damage on family relationships.

Ok, fine. The “sanctions” you refer to is the shunning. So what human right is violated by someone’s choice not to associate (shun)? The shunning comes from the members. The active members, that engage in the shunning, do so because they believe it is right - they believe the WT interpretation of the Bible in that regard.

There is a human right - an actual right - a “negative” right (or liberty) - of freedom of association. Are you saying that JWs should not be allowed to exercise that right?

MMM

51

BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz in

the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

finland attacks judicial committees.

please like and share article so more get to see it!.

MeanMrMustard

Groups have a lot of latitude in their behavior. However, once you enjoy the tax benefits of a non-profit organizations there needs to be established a value to the community. The antisocial behavior of jws is the opposite of what should be considered community benefit.

Is that written somewhere in the law (it could be in Finland, I don’t know) that if you accept tax exemptions, you automatically accept the government’s regulation over doctrines that it might find unacceptable?

If it were written that way, do you think the WTB&TS would go along with it? There are easy ways to make up the cost of taxes (see below).

So, they can do two things give up shunning and a few other antisocial behaviors (like letting their kids die) or give up their tax benefits.

Let’s say this were enacted. Are you thinking about the unintended consequences? That is, you hope that the WTB&TS would think about losing their tax exempt status, and then change their doctrine to conform. However, what is more likely happen is that they would accept the taxes, and pass them down to their members. This occurs with pretty much all tax hikes on corporations - the corporation doesn’t pay, people pay. Either the customers or, in the case, the members. New donation arrangements would be “suggested”, or certain updates to halls would be placed on hold and the local congregation would have to come up with the funds, or any number of things. In the end, you are placing the tax on the members, and it wouldn’t change the shunning.

MMM

199

Trinitarians! Who is Jesus Christ's father the Holy Spirit or the Father?

by booker-t in

this is one question that trinitarians try to avoid because they have created a very embarrassing problem.

the bible is very clear when the angel tells mary that holy spirit will overshadow her and she will become pregnant.

the angel does not say the father will overshadow her but the holy spirit will and if the holy spirit is a person that would make him the father of jesus.

MeanMrMustard

Once you guys are settled on the very nature of the supreme God himself (or themselves), which ever it comes out to be, perhaps you can concentrate on a question that really matters: festivus vs. christmas.

MMM